Our mission is to protect the habitat of Puget Sound tidelands from the underregulated expansion of new and intensive shellfish aquaculture methods. These methods were never anticipated when the Shoreline Management Act was passed. They are transforming the natural tideland ecosystems in Puget Sound and are resulting in a fractured shoreline habitat. In South Puget Sound much of this has been done with few if any meaningful shoreline permits and with limited public input. It is exactly what the Shoreline Management Act was intended to prevent.

Get involved and contact your elected officials to let them you do not support aquaculture's industrial transformation of Puget Sound's tidelands.

Governor Inslee:

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

California AB 976: Strong Majority in Assembly Vote for Reconsideration

Update: Capital Weekly has reported for the 3rd time in 5 years lawmakers in California have decided against giving the Coastal Commission the ability to levy fines without having to go to court. The lack of failure was largely due to 15 Assembly members who simply chose not to vote. They include: Achadjian, Alejo, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Buchanan, Eggman, Fox, Frazier, Garcia, Gordon, Roger Hernández, Levine, Perea, V. Manuel Pére. (Note: Assemblyman Levine chose to vote for reconsideration, then chose - again - not to vote.)

Update: The Assembly's most recent vote on AB 976 did not receive the 41 necessary for passing. It may be brought up for vote once more. The Pacific Legal Foundation declared the most recent vote a "major victory."

A strong majority in the Assembly has voted in favor of reconsideration of AB 976 with 48 in favor. The bill needs 41 votes to pass. The following Assembly members did not cast a vote:  Achadjian, Eggman, Fox, Frazier, /Garcia, Quirk-Silva, and Salas.

The bill would allow the California Coastal Commission to levy fines on egregious violators of the California Coastal Act. Currently the Coastal Commission must first issue a “cease-and-desist” order when a violation is identified. If the order goes ignored, the Commission has the option of pursuing enforcement against the alleged violator through county superior courts.

Contrary to opposition statements made, minor violations are specifically excluded, with the bill clearly stating:

(f) In enacting this section, it is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that unintentional, minor violations of this division that only cause de minimis harm will not lead to the imposition of civil penalties if the violator has acted expeditiously to correct the violation.
AB 976 is found here.

No comments:

Post a Comment